Open Letter to Mr Herbert M. Freedholm

Many of us spent years in JPUSA and assumed that the way that the commune was governed was by the best, most biblical, model. Submission to “elders” and “accountability” as practiced at JPUSA was not seriously questioned or,beyond a few proof-texts, biblically tested. It has been helpful to allow ourselvesto question the JPUSA system of government in order to come to a broader, morebiblical understanding of authority in the church. The following is a paper,written for an evangelical university class on Biblical Theology, which attemptsto critique the JPUSA system. Although an academic paper, it is written inthe form of a letter per the requirements of the course. The letter was eventuallysent to Herb Freedholm at thebehest and suggestion of the professor of thecourse.

Writingthis letter is one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do. I never imagined that I would ever have any reason to criticize an organization that, for the past thirteen years, was my ministry, my home, my family, and my life.I came to Jesus People at age eighteen and in many ways I grew up there, bothas a Christian and as a person. The things that I learned, the maturity I gainedduring my experience have helped shape who I am today and I am truly gratefulfor all God has done in me through my time in the community. Yet, this is alsowhy I am so deeply troubled over the problems I see within the community. Duringthe last few years I grew concerned about the spiritual condition of the community andalso of the steady departure of many older members. Two years ago I wrote aletter to the JPUSA pastors to express my concerns, but it was only in thispast year that the urgency of the situation became apparent to me through certaincircumstances in my personal life, which forced me to examine and confrontwhat I came to see as serious systemic problems in the community. I believeit is these systemic problems that are affecting the spiritual life of membersand ultimately resulting in the departure of many long-term members (includingmy wife and I) from JPUSA. It is my hope that through this letter you can cometo understand these problems and take the appropriate steps to help JPUSA recognizeand correct them.

According to Paul, the church is one body with many members, “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts” (1 Cor. 12:12 NIV). It would follow then that the church could have both “member problems” and “body problems” – or, put another way, personal and systemic problems. This is born out by the fact that the epistles in the New Testament are addressed to whole churches and in these books both personal and systemic problems are addressed. But perhaps the clearest example of churches confronted as a body is in Revelation chapters two and three. Inthese passages Jesus speaks directly to the churches, praising and rebuking the whole church for their good and bad attitudes, beliefs, and practices. In order to understand the systemic problems of JPUSA, however, you will firsthave to understand the system. Although it is true that JPUSA is in no waysystematic, it does nonetheless have a system, which is created from both thegroup norms and the government of the community. No written policy can adequatelyaccount for the many unspoken laws by which a group operates, but this is especially soat Jesus People where the primary norms are not written down.

From my own experience, I know that JPUSA uses a modifiedform of “shepherding”which is comprised of the practices of confession and hierarchical accountability and submission to established leaders.

“Calling” is the gateway into JPUSA; it is thechief consideration for any person who makes a long-term commitment and, infact, the general rule is only those who feel definitely called shouldeven consider such a commitment. Ultimately, calling for JPUSAs means thatthey feel God has lead and confirmed to them that He wants them to be partof the community. Most members who have received this call understand it as,at the least, a long-term commitment and, for some, it is felt to be for therest of their lives.

Once one has responded to the call to “forsake all” and join the community, one then becomes accountable to the community. In otherwords, if one is called to JPUSA, one enters JPUSA shepherding. Accountability is the chief norm at JPUSA. The two parts of accountability as it ispracticed there are personal confession and submission.

Confession of one’s most secret and personal sinsis considered the most important practice for all community members’spiritual growth. “Sharing” (as personal confession is called) atJPUSA works like this. A member is encouraged to confess his or her sins toan older member who will then keep the member accountable because he or shewill be familiar with the person, the patterns of his or her sins, frequency,and whether progress is being made. A member is said to need someone to “callhis shots”; in other words, someone not afraid to confront and rebukeif needed. In almost all cases for a new member, this would be the “buddy”(a host who is part of the “family” the new member is placed in),though eventually he or she would come to share directly with a “familyhead” or pastor. The stated goal of sharing is for members to be accountableor, as it was called when I first joined the community, spiritually “covered”.

Another goal of confession is what is called “transparency”. By freely confessing sins it is hoped members will become more open and honest as everyone else in the community comes to know them exactly as they are withall their faults. An extension of this transparency within the community isthe rejection of the concept of confidentiality. The reasoning goes, because transparency should be every member’s goal and because the community is one big family, there is no need for confidentiality. The pastors show a special freedom in sharing the personal problems of members. Perhaps this is because the pastors are at the top of the accountability hierarchy and thusare aware of the sins and weaknesses of all “sharing” members.

Closely related to confession is submission. At JPUSA, submission is expected in all major decisions and actions. The principle behind this isfrom scriptures such as “in the multitude of counselors there is safety”(Proverbs 11:14 KJV) and “The way of the fool seems right to him, buta wise man listens to advice” (Proverbs 12:15 NIV). In practice, submissionmeans members are expected to seek “counsel”or permission on topicsranging from choosing a mate and child rearing, to what music to listen to,attending college, money needs, work assignments, etc. How this is carriedout at JPUSA is that a younger member is expected to submit to the older memberhe or she regularly shares with or to a pastor. Depending on the issue, theolder member or pastor will then give advice or, if it is a matter of permission, itis granted or denied. Many times the distinction is unclear between askingadvice and asking permission because one is going to the same people for both.In any case, it is understood that whether for advice or permission the bestplace to go is to the pastors because they are considered the oldest and wisestmembers and because they are the final authority to which all members mustsubmit.

Submission is carried over into the government of JPUSAalso. A system of hierarchical submission requires that there must be somefinal person or group to which all others submit. The eight elders of the JPUSA council are both pastors and the board of directors. This means that all decisions aboutall areas of the community ultimately lie with them. It is important to rememberthat members have given all of their life in commitment to the community –financial, spiritual, and personal – and so, as the leaders of the community,the pastors are, in effect, in charge of every aspect of every member’slife. The JPUSA Covenant make this point clear in their discussion of the governmentof the community, “Our ‘church government’ is made up ofat least seven elders/pastors, responsible for the oversight and growth ofthe ministry… Each member’s commitment is to abide by decisions madeby the elders in accordance with biblical principles: ‘Obey your leaders andsubmit to them’…” The only exception to this submissionis if the elders’decisions “are contrary to God’s Word orthe member’s conscience” (p.1-2). It is important to note herethat this statement means that, in all other instances which are not obviouslyunbiblical, a JPUSA member’s commitment is to follow and abide by thedecisions of the pastors, even in extra-biblical matters. Why this isimportant to note is because the expectation of members to “submit”in this way is considered integral to their commitment to the community. Thusif members disagree with pastors, even about extra-biblical matters, the onlyoption for the member is to leave. Some times the pastors insist the membersleave because of these disagreements. This has crucial consequences for themember, which I will return to later.

According to the JPUSA bylaws, the pastors serve as churchcouncil, board of Trustees, and pastors and they serve in perpetuity, “Council members shall serve a perpetual term until they retire, resign, or they are removed”(Constitution and Bylaws Jesus People USA Covenant Church. Art.IV Sec. 2b). Members of the council can only be added or removed by a vote of the council themselves. In addition to the board of elders, there are various other boards, which serve the many different areas of business and ministry of thecommunity. One or more pastors are on each of these as chairmen, although theboards themselves are administrative, set up only to carry out the “policiesand programs established by the council”(Constitution and Bylaws JesusPeople USA Covenant Church Art. IV, Sec. 3g). There is also a rotating groupof deacons and deaconesses who are given various responsibilities but whodo not participate in the government of the community.

There is no provision for congregational involvement inthe government of the community (except administrative committees) in the bylaws and constitution of JPUSA. It is understood that if an issue, question, or need is important that the member will seek out, talk over, and submit these to the pastors. Aside from discussing and submitting, however, there is no means for the average member to participate in decisions made about issues that effect even his or her personal life – child rearing, dating, job choice or money needs. There are no open forums for members to discuss community issues, big or small, or where the pastors could solicit the ideas or opinions of members, as a group, on any major or minor decisions that are before them.Instead, the council makes all decisions in private, weekly meetings.

I believe the JPUSA shepherding system is fundamentallyflawed and is causing various negative effects in the members including over-dependence, a “glass ceiling” on spiritual growth and leadership development, and as a result of these problems, eventual relational breakdown between membersand leaders. I believe all this is due to the system not adapting to the maturing of the members and because the practice of shepherding is itself un scriptural.

Although interdependence is the stated ideal of the community, the unfortunate reality is that the system requires dependence. As has been shown above, there is no area of life that is not in submission. I do not mean by this that the pastors exert total control over members’ every decision (having lived there, I know better) nor am I interested in determining what freedoms some individuals do or do not have under certain circumstances. Rather, I am interested in the overall effect of the system on long-term members, of the reduction of opportunities for them to test their wings as decision-makers,to seek God for direction for important areas of their own lives. I believethis kind of abdication of responsibility – even for the noble purposesof ministry and “community” – is not healthy in the long-runfor JPUSA members or leaders. What is more, after a close study of New Testament(albeit by a “layman” like myself) I can find little support for such an all-encompassing spiritual authority.

Interdependence is “bearing one another’s burdens”. Submission is giving over all ones burdens (and responsibilities) to a few leaders. Seeking counsel is counted wise because one freely seeks the counsel for decisions which one is then free to make. Submission means having these freedoms stifled by the requirement to seek counsel that is more like law and asking advice that is more like asking permission.

Members should naturally want to be more involved in theleadership of the community as they mature and should be encouraged to if they don’t. Paul boldly approved of those who sought leadership in the church (1 Tim. 3:1) and expected mutual responsibility from members who were not leaders. However,there are no structures offered for members to participate in the directionof the community and there are little or no organized efforts at leadershipdevelopment at JPUSA. This is in part due to the fact that the pastors areso overburdened with so many responsibilities that they do not have time todo this and also because all leadership is currently fulfilled by them. Butit also has to do with the fact that there does not seem to bea vision forwhat members are to do once they have matured.The communityhas not adaptedfrom methods of recovery to methods of nurturing and development. In such asystem where all leadership is essentially in the hands of a few, mature membersbegin to feel they are trapped in a perpetual subservient position. This especiallysaddens me when I think of all the wonderful, gifted people at JPUSA, peoplewho have proven their commitment to Christ by making the sacrifices it takesto live and work in the inner city. There is great potential in the membersof JPUSA that is not being recognized and nurtured. Paul wrote to Timothy toseek out trustworthy men so that he could pass on the trust of preaching the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). There are so many trustworthy men and women at JPUSA who need to have their gifts developed and be commissioned to lead the work for thegood news of the Kingdom.

Statements in the past by the pastors claimed that livingso closely together would inevitably result in tensions. But that is only half-right. In addition to living so closely, the system of submission puts too much authority over members’ lives in the hands of a few flawed humans and this creates unbearable tensions. With this inordinate amount of authority in the pastors’hands,there are bound to be serious and painful mistakes made. The pastors have attimes lamented from the pulpit that they wear the “bulls-eye”for members’ hostilities and blame. Yet, this should be no wonder because this is due, at least in part, to the leaders taking on too much decision making that does not properly belong to them and thus they receive blame that should notordinarily belong to them either.

Perhaps the most damaging thing submission does to the relationship between members and leaders is the lowering of the pastors’respect for members. This is tragically seen in what has become a kind of flagrant institutionalized gossip and slander. Because the pastors are the final ones members are accountable to, they know about every member’s sins. This is a precious trust, buttransparency (discussed above) has become a lame excuse for airing out sinsand weaknesses of members in any casual conversation. This gossip has muchless to do with a desire for openness and honesty than it does with the pastorsbeing so overwhelmed with members’burdens that are not theirs, thatthey feel the need to “vent”or “rant and rave” about them – as if they have come to see the members themselves as burdens. You may well imagine the damage this slander does to the character of members in aclose-knit group. Perhaps their position at the top of the accountability hierarchy prevents them from seeing members as peers or shields them from recognizing the fear and mistrust that this gossip engenders in members and the damageit does to their relationships. As Proverbs 16:28 says,“a gossip separatesclose friends” (NIV). James 4:11-12 lists slander and judging a brotheras a result of an insidious pride that seeks to displace God. Ironically, itis His very authority and position that is usurped by leaders in such a systemof submission.

Oddly enough, in the midst of this “transparency” there are no open forums where members can discuss, openly and honestly, problemswith the leadership and with the community as a whole. In fact, the pastorshave insisted that members not talk among themselves about community problems,but should only talk individually with the pastors. This is a very troubling rule; it is a kind of inverted confidentiality. The members must talk only with pastors and in private about very public problems, while the pastors may speak openly in any conversation about the very private problems of members. In the former case pastors believe that such discussions create discord and divide the community. What they fail to see is that the latter is also divisive. A member who is slandered over the years by his own leaders experiences the worst kind of rejection and will never feel unified. Though he continues to live there, it may merely be because he is bound by a sense of obligation.

There are many other examples of how the pastors are overburdened and have lost respect for members. This includes notes being unanswered for months, decisions not being communicated to waiting members, pastors seldom visiting members (members must visit pastors), members rarely being asked for their advice or opinions, and leaders rarely in peer relationships with members but only other pastors.

What is tragic is that JPUSA seems locked into this unhealthy system. Remember that members’ commitment to the community is to “abide by decisions made by the elders” and because members feel obligated by this commitment they often will ignore or suppress their concerns or criticisms. Meanwhile, because the pastors are convinced God willed this kind of system for JPUSA they do not see the damage it causes or that it is contributing to the departure of older members.

Failure to Adapt

I believe the above problems of dependence and relationalstrife between members and leaders are due, at least in part, to JPUSA’ssubmission system of government. When JPUSA started it was made up almost entirely of teenagers who were trying to leave drugs or other life dominating sins.Many of the practices and beliefs of the ministry were formed while trying to help these members recover and restore their lives to wholeness. This is perhaps why JPUSA embraced shepherding as a way to keep order and discipline in the young group. However, JPUSA continues shepherding even after it was long ago discredited and abandoned by other churches. This may be because the pastorsfear the disintegration of the community without the control afforded them by shepherding. However, this fear reflects a need to control a group of young,immature Christians that now no longer exists. Changes to the structure have occurred – I was there to see many of them – but they have not kept pace with changes in the members who are now adults with families, many of whom have been in the community for one or two decades. Meanwhile the pastorsmaintain that the community needs just the kind of structure and government that it has, that they don’t foresee any significant change needed anytimein the future. The reasons given for this are that God led them to this formof government and that it is the only kind that will work for a community environmentlike JPUSA. Of course, neither is really a good reason to refuse to change.In the first case, if God led them to the present form of government, He maywell lead them to change it. In the second case, as Ladd (1974) notes, “Theorganizational structure of the church is no essential element in the theologyof the church” (p.579). Scripture leaves the issue fairly open ended,apparently so that adaptation to circumstance can happen. So, one must ask,is adaptation needed and is it scriptural to allow more or less involvementby mature members in the government of JPUSA, which for them is their ministry, home, and life?

The Scriptural Response to Shepherding

I can find no precedent in the New Testament for the lack of involvement of the congregation and the extent of authority used at JPUSA. Because JPUSA claims the early church in Acts as its model, I looked there first and found that congregational involvement began at the very inception of the church when the120 disciples chose the two candidates for Judas’s successor (Acts 1:15-23).A little bit later the congregation (of new converts, no less!) is called onagain to choose the church’s first deacons (Acts 6:1-7). At the sametime of this considerable congregational involvement, the authority of thechurch leaders is clearly limited. In neither of the two examples above did the leaders presume to decide for the congregation.

The whole doctrine of submission is founded on only a few verses in the NewTestament (1 Cor. 16:16, Eph. 5:21, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:5). The most direct passage is Hebrews 13:17 which is quoted in the JPUSA covenant,“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” However, Vines (1985) definesthe word obey here as “’to persuade, to win over,’ in the passive and middle voices…The ‘obedience’ suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion” (p. 438).This fits with the speeches we see at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:22) whichare clearly made as appeals to their listeners, not pronouncements. In addition,one can observe the tone of the epistles themselves. Even though written byapostles, they maintain a tone of persuasion rather than command or verdict. According to Ladd (1974), “Paul as an apostle claimed an authority, especially in teaching, that he insisted be recognized…However this authority was that of spiritual and moral persuasion, not formal and legal”(p. 576).

Even if a kind of submission could be shown from scripture, it still remains to be seen what that submission would entail. Leaders in the New Testament do not appear to be involved in the micro-management of the livesof their congregations. Leaders are shown making decisions about doctrine and morals, but nowhere is there an example of submission related to personal decisions. For example, in Acts 5:3-4, Peter clearly states that there was no rule requiring Ananias and Sapphira to sell their property or any expectation to seek Peter’sadvice about the matter. Peter says the land was theirs, the decision was betweenthem and God and thus, they had not lied to him but to God.

The pastors have maintained that authority and submissionare needed because of the peculiar needs of a community setting. However, the early church/community in Jerusalem does not appear to have had any such structure.The congregation was definitely involved in the major decisions and directionof the community. This is again seen at the Jerusalem council,“Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose someof their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas”(Acts 15:22 NIV).

There are direct statements in the New Testament about what the character of leadership for Christians should be and these all seem to run counter to a system of submission. Jesus himself laid down the standard, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” (Matthew 20:25-27 NIV). Just in case the disciples were unclear about what “lord it over” meant, Jesus follows with “their high officials exercise authority over them”.This is clearly referring to the hierarchical chain of command. And, to make sure there is no doubt about what he means, he gives the positive example of what a leader should be. A parallel passage in Luke puts a finer point on this. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that.” Here Luke has Jesus, with apparent irony, point out that the gentileleaders give themselves the name Benefactors, which means friends of the people. Jesus is saying that, regardless of the protestations of benevolence by the leaders, their system is not to be imitated because it “lords it over”their subjects. Clearly he is contrasting true Christian leadership not justwith the overbearing attitude of the gentile leaders, but also with the systemitself. Peter refers to this in 1 Peter 5:1-3 where he instructs elders tolead by “not lording it over the those entrusted you, but being examplesto the flock”.Thus, though the “younger” are to submit,their submission is clearly only to an authority that leads by example, notby mere authority itself. It is interesting to note that others have also triedto use Peter to justify secular authoritarianism (1 Peter 2:13-14). However,Peter carefully qualified submission to secular authority on one hand as tothose who “punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right”and to spiritual authority on the other hand as to those who lead by being“examples to the flock”.

The question is how do these scriptures relate to the practice of submission at JPUSA? Although it is true that the pastors do not have an attitude of “lording it over”, their practice of submission ismuch like the Benefactors Jesus named – a kindly yet “authoritarian” system. What would a system based on Jesus’ servant leadership look like?Would such a system seek to include members in its functioning, seek their advice, seek to raise them to leadership? Or would it lead by appeal to itsown authority? It is clear from the New Testament that leaders lead by moralpersuasion, based on God’s Word, and by their example and not by decree.It is also clear that the New Testament pattern is to have the congregation included in the government of the church.

Conclusion

Ironically, it is accountability, the very practice moststressed by the pastors, that can help correct the problems at JPUSA. But it is true mutual accountability that is needed, both from within and without the community. Unfortunately the structure of the community shields the pastorsfrom this accountability. JPUSA joined the Evangelical Covenant denomination with the stated desire for accountability. Unfortunately, those outside the community have difficulty understanding its internal problems and may also be reluctant to interfere with a group that appears to have succeeded where many others have failed and which does so many good works. It would require the active seeking of advice by the pastors, inviting an outside authority in to observe and talk with all the members about the health of the community. Even though the community is open to visitors and observers, a complete picture of it’s inner struggles would not be apparent unless members felt safe to share these with someone “outside”, unless they knew they could share “negative” comments without risking criticism or rebuke from the pastors. As far as Iknow, the pastors have not given such an invitation or sought this level ofaccountability from even the most trusted outside sources.

Accountability from within is problematic as well. Because their authority is absolute in the community, members are in a weak position from which to bring criticism. But it is even less likely since the emphasis on submissiveness creates an environment where the most mature members are often reluctant to criticize because they feel they are not being good community members. The results of this lack of accountability are the very entrenched systemic problemswhich members fear to criticize. In contrast, the congregations in the New Testament were not timid in bringing their complaints and asking leaders to explain themselves. Unfortunately the leaders at JPUSA have a history of appealingto their own authority when members voice concern or criticism about the community.

This was, in fact, our experience when my wife and I raised issues and requested greater participation of members in the government of the community. The problems we identified were denied, our character and motivationswere questioned, and the idea of changing the government or structure of thecommunity in any way was flatly refused. The pastors told us that God hadgiven them final authority and instituted their structure of government and these things would never change; we would have to either accept this or leave.This level of defensiveness on the part of the pastors shocked and saddenedus. Unfortunately, we are not the only one’s to experience this kindof response to suggestions for change. More common, though, are the many oldermembers who simply leave without openly confronting why they are leaving. In the last two years, nearly thirty long-time couples have left JPUSA.

So the problems continue even as members continue to leave. The timid attempts to seek change by those inside the community have so far failed. It remains to be seen if those in the body of Christ outside JPUSA can help the pastors face and begin to rectify the systemic issues that are stifling growth and forcing their long-time members to leave. In the end, the question inevitably arises, how could a group like JPUSA, that does so much good, be capable of these kinds of errors? The simple answer is, the same way the churches in Revelation chapters two and three could be deserving of both Jesus’ loving praise and rebuke - “I know your deeds…yet I have this against you…” It is my hope and prayer that this same love of Christ is even now at work to bring about times of change, renewal, and reconciliation for my brothers and sisters at JPUSA.